His views on leadership and power in that book remind me a lot of pieces by Plato and Aristotle of the time. Heinlein’s discussion of service qualifying someone to vote. Reminds me a lot of the idea that only property owners or people with vested interest could vote early American philosophy for Thomas Jefferson hinged on things like that.
@leadershipisaphilosophyАй бұрын
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I think this also comes from the reason true leaders should have empathy, and should have working knowledge of most the activities in their organizations. I can't make an informed decision if I can't relate to the consequences of the variables involved.
@HorkSupreme3 жыл бұрын
I think the major reason why so many people disparage it, without just cause, is that the primary idea is personal responsibility and accountability are NECESSARILY paired with authority and power. One without the other is either oppression, punishing people for something they have no control over, or tyranny, absolute power to do anything on a whim in which others are evitably blamed since the consequences didn't occur as the supreme leader wanted them to. Heinlein links these concepts with the vote and citizenship, 'voting is violence' because you are forcing your will, through the government, onto other people (and if you oppose the government you will be threatened and attacked). It is any wonder there is name calling (FASCISM!) when the consequences of such an paradigm is that the idiots, who are seething at the book, are incompetent, or selfish in the sense that they will sacrifice other people for their own benefit and give nothing in return, will never have the power to influence society in the way they wish. Think of the current voting system. The moron has the same ability to make change in the system as the savant, the fool as the clever, the psychopath to the empath, the lazy squanderer who only receive government hand outs (welfare) compared to one who has been productive for 30 years essentially paying for that parasite. At the fundamental level its the idea of equality, that we're all the same and one person's thoughts and ideas for the future is just as valid and effective as another and treating one person the same as everyone else is morally justified (which them being immoral is the core of the issue). It is taboo is discriminate based on any criteria (observe differences), even if doing so would lead to a better world (meritocracy or experience to do things better) , and if you don't wish to be exiled from society you must lie about this reality (cancel culture).
@deaddropsd19723 жыл бұрын
Thank you for reviewing my favorite book 📚 of all time!!!!
@வலஸிந்வலஸிந்3 жыл бұрын
mine too !!!
@MonochromeChromosome3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the review! Love the book, love watching the reviews to confirm my bias towards it :)
@leadershipisaphilosophy3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your kind comment, I find it interesting I discovered different layers reading it several times over the years.
@வலஸிந்வலஸிந்3 жыл бұрын
I ve read this awesome book about 5 times, even sometimes, i open it to read my best parts ( and there are many ). I ve read it in the french edition, i was lucky to print pdf in english. BTW, all Heinlein books are great ( "beyond this horizon", thumbs up ). THX for this very interesting podcast.
@leadershipisaphilosophy3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your kind comment, as short as the book is, it has a bunch of layers.